Universally Left And Right

Posted on September 20, 2023 by thezman

123

One of the many problems that plague this time is the poverty of language when it comes to our politics. We remain stuck with the language of the past, even though the political and ideological structures of the past are no longer relevant. The use of antiquated language forces people to use those old mental structures, which in turn means jamming the present into the molds of the past. The most obvious example is Left and Right, which have lost any real meaning.

Is Ben Shapiro a conservative? He calls himself a conservative, but Steve Sailer calls himself a conservative too. While they may agree on many practical things, it should be clear that they have different motivations. Ben Shapiro’s conservatism is driven by a desire for what is good for his people, while Steve Sailer thinks his positions are good for the country of his birth. They get lumped in with many other people on the Right, but they clearly have different political goals.

Therein lies the main problem with the most basic of political labels. Steve Sailer and Ben Shapiro assume that the rules of morality are rational. If they are rational, then we can reason our way to the correct morality. If we can do that then there is no reason that everyone cannot do the same thing. This is also the position of people like Karl Marx and John Rawls. It is the view of the current Left. They think they have found the right moral system and you just need to realize it.

Right there is the central problem of this age. We hold onto terms like Left and Right but have forgotten why they exist. The Left used to be those who said that the rules of morality must be rational, because the natural world is rational. The Right said morality is based in Scripture and the will of God but shaped by tradition. Scripture does not cover everything, so history, tradition, and custom fill the gaps. Those items are central to understanding the central morality of Christianity.

This is the fundamental difference between Left and Right that has been lost, resulting in the incoherent use of the terms today. Both the modern Left and the modern Right assume that there is one universal moral code that is rooted in reason. Because morality is rational, it applies to everyone, just as the rules of math apply to everyone, so it means it is the duty of those who know to educate those who do not know in the same way we spread other knowledge.

This is what Paul Gottfried and others have been trying, unsuccessfully, to explain to Michael Anton over the last year. His “natural rights” argument must lead to that which he claims to reject, because it relies on the same assumptions and logic as that used by left-wing radicals for centuries. Once you assume morality is based in reason, you must assume there is one universal morality. The next steps from there do not matter as they all lead to the same place, death camps.

Of course, this must lead to the end of tradition. If morality is based in reason, then it means past practice is a form of trial and error, mostly error. The way we used to understand morality, say basing it in local custom, must be wrong because reason has brought us to a new and better understanding of morality. Tradition, history and custom, if they have any value at all, are a warning. Those who cling to antiquated moral claims based in tradition are rejecting reason.

This explains another bit of incoherent vocabulary. The people celebrating diversity are the least tolerant of diversity. The reason for that is diversity for them is a narrow tool, a wedge to be used to separate people from their history, traditions, and customs so that they can more easily be herded into the new moral framework. Diversity is a means to an end, not an end in itself, even if they claim otherwise, because there can be no diversity within a settled moral order.

The biggest problem that arises from universal morality based in reason is that it must come with a duty to impose that morality on others. This is the central insight of Nietzsche, who argued that once you conclude that morality is rational, you must accept it is universal and therefore binding on everyone. This divides the world into moral and immoral actors, where the moral actors are judged not on their individual compliance with moral reason but their willingness to enforce it.

If reason tells us that everyone can and must have the same morality, then there is no room for things like national borders. Borders are about dividing people based on how they think they ought to live. People over there live the way they do because they think that is how they ought to live, while the people over here live as we do because it is how we ought to live. The border dividing the two people is to preserve these moral differences, which flies in the face of reasoned morality.

Similarly, free association is about separating people, which rests on the assumption that people may be different not just in their superficial characteristics but in how they think they ought to live. The men’s club exists because men do not think like women and therefore must have a different moral outlook. Logically, it means they must have different roles in determining how we ought to live. If the moral questions have been settled, then this form of association is unacceptable.

What all this leads to is a way of sorting people in the modern age. If you are sure morality is based in reason, then you are in one camp, along with Locke, Rousseau, Karl Marx, and John Rawls. If you think morality lies outside the domain of reason and is instead based in the supernatural or tradition, then you are in another camp along with people like de Maistre, Burke and even many of the Framers. One camp is on the Left and the other is the Right.

If you like my work and wish to kick in a few bucks, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. Thank you for your support!

Promotions: Good Svffer is an online retailer partnering with several prolific content creators on the Dissident Right, both designing and producing a variety of merchandise including shirts, posters, and books. If you are looking for a way to let the world know you are one of us without letting the world know you are one one is us, then you should but a shirt with the Lagos Trading Company logo.

The Pepper Cave produces exotic peppers, pepper seeds and plants, hot sauce and seasonings. Their spice infused salts are a great add to the chili head spice armory, so if you are a griller, take you spice business to one of our guys.

Above Time Coffee Roasters are a small, dissident friendly company that roasts its own coffee and ships all over the country. They actually roast the beans themselves based on their own secret coffee magic. If you like coffee, buy it from these folks as they are great people who deserve your support.

Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start.

Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb. Just email them directly to book at sales@minterandrichterdesigns.com.

What Lies Beneath

Posted on September 13, 2023 by thezman

Imagine a world of perfect candor where any hint of deception or inaccuracy is considered a blot on a man’s character. Everyone is raised to answer every question as honestly and forthrightly as possible. When the wife asks the husband if he thinks she is getting fat, he tells her he does think she is getting fat. Instead of getting upset and running into the bedroom, she excitedly hugs him because he was perfectly honest to her regarding an extremely sensitive matter.

This Vulcan-like candor would alter social relations. For example, stores would seek the best way to show their customers that they are completely honest. When they put something on sale, they would say it was because no one liked it or that they mistakenly bought too much of it and now need to unload it. The sign at the customer service window would read, “The customer is usually wrong.” Clerks would never say “have a good one” to customers.

That would still leave room for deception, so the stores would insist the product makers use candid labeling for their products. Frozen pizza boxes would read, “It tastes like cardboard, but it is cheap and easy to heat in the microwave.” Ingredient lists would include all of the ingredients, even the ones that cause cancer and those would be highlighted so the customer could see them. Organic food would not exist as everything about it is fake and therefore a lie.

Keep in mind that this imaginary world is not enforcing honestly at the point of a gun but as a matter of cultural preference. For some reason, the people in this society came to believe that only through perfect honesty can they have moral society. Therefore, the customs, folk legends and religious practices are all geared toward enforcing this idea that honesty is the highest virtue. Because honesty comes with status, everyone in public engages in honesty signaling contests.

It may seem ridiculous at first, but every human society selects for subjective qualities and against other qualities. The English prefer interesting over boring, which is why their popular figures appear eccentric and weird. Americans dislike phonies so popular figures try hard to look sincere, even when lying. There is no objective reason to prefer interesting over dull or sincere over inauthentic. Preferring these qualities is not more or less strange than celebrating candor.

Now think about this in the American context. Walk into any grocery store in America and the first thing you will experience is a lie. Typically, the produce section is located at the front of the store. There will be piles of fruits and vegetables labeled organic, but as a practical matter there is no such thing. Even if the fruit is grown according to the rules of the organic cult, the suppliers lose track of it long before it reaches the store, so there is no way to know what is organic and what is inorganic.

The stores know this. They put the best-looking stuff on the table marked organic and jack up the price to reinforce the lie. The suppliers know this, and the growers know it too, if you can get them to be honest about it. Everything about that organic tomato you bought is a lie, including your belief that it is better than the other tomato. You reward yourself by accepting the lie. You reward the store for lying to you and the store rewards its suppliers for lying to them. It is liars all the way down.

You have made it a few feet into the store, and you are deluged with lies. Venture further and you are swimming in an ocean of lies. The packaging of food is carefully designed to trick consumers. Tens of billions of dollars have gone into figuring out how to trick people into buying things. Of course, everything about the American diet is a lie perpetrated by the government at the behest of agribusiness. A man from Planet Candor would be horrified by the frozen food section.

Now, think about what sort of government would work best in a society run on the principle of complete candor. Monarchy could work, but it would be less than honest to claim that the son of the king is the most qualified to rule. A ruling council of the most honest citizens, maybe picked by the people, would probably be best as it would reward candor with the highest office. Candidates for seats on the council would prove their worth through campaigns of total honesty.

In fact, democracy would work well on Planet Candor. One of the foundational principles of democracy is that “all members must have equal and effective opportunities to learn about the consequences and alternatives of a proposal.” In a society where honesty is the highest virtue, the pressure to make sure everyone is as well informed as possible would lead to the most informed citizens. You would not have to worry about voter fraud or ballot stuffing on Planet Candor.

This is where you might think something is wrong. America is more democratic than any society in history and it is riddled with lies and corruption. The man holding the highest office recently claimed he was at the World Trade Center on 9/11. He repeatedly tells outlandish whoppers like this about himself. He is in office because he was the beneficiary of the most corrupt election in American history. That was made possible by a tsunami of lies from the mass media.

We seem to have a dilemma. On the one hand, the society of perfect honesty seems like the ideal place for democracy. On the other hand, democracy in practice results in a society ruled by the least honest people. When you think back to how our marketplace operates on a foundation of lies, it suggests any open market, whether it is for goods and service or ideas, becomes an elaborate game of liar’s poker. The marketplace rewards deception, so you end up with a lot of liars.

There are some possible solutions to this dilemma. One is that humans naturally want to live in a society controlled by liars. We have steadily become more democratic because mankind is slowly reaching its desired end. Alternatively, democracy and the marketplace turn even the most honest people into liars. If someone unleashed democracy on Planet Candor, it would quickly devolve into Planet Deception and come to resemble modern America.

There is a third option. Let us suppose that Planet Candor operates on perfect honesty because long ago a powerful force came to their planet and told them that unless they stamped out deception, their planet would be destroyed. Over time this belief in the risk of deception became a central part of who they are as a people and who each person is in relation to society. Put another way, honesty has become a religion for them, one that leads to salvation for themselves and their posterity.

Under such conditions, the acid of democracy and the free market would land on a society immune to its corrosive effects. All those snakes selling organic apples in the produce section of the grocery store would find no takers. Similarly, the fig leaf makers would have no reason to exist. After all, those they did manage to tempt would be selected out of the gene pool due to low status. In time, democracy would be a mechanism to select against the dishonest.

John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Outside of the various forms of authoritarianism, this is true of all governments. You cannot have an honest monarchy if the people over whom it rules are immoral. You cannot have a benevolent dictator if his people are liars and crooks. Morality is what ultimately controls the behavior of the people and what makes good governance possible.

That is the source of what plagues us today. The structures we inherited assume a specific moral foundation. When the ruling class that emerged with the American empire in the middle of the last century exiled the principles that made up that moral foundation, society was left without any protection from the temptations that lie in the marketplace for goods and ideas. The endless haggling over what we ought to do is only possible when there is no moral authority.

It also explains the panicked frenzy by the ruling class to conjure a moral framework to justify their behavior. The endless chanting about diversity is not intended to convince anyone that it is a strength, but to prevent anyone from asking who gave them the authority to fill our communities with strangers. The weird sexual fetishes they have unleashed are squid ink to prevent anyone from asking them upon what moral authority they are basing their sweeping claims about society.

The great critic of the Enlightenment, Joseph de Maistre, famously said, “Every country has the government it deserves.” Most people think this means the people deserve punishment for supporting unscrupulous politicians. What de Maistre meant here is the morality of society determines the type of government. In the case of France, stripping away the Catholic Church and the monarchy left French society without a moral foundation for government. Tyranny is what followed.

That is what we see happening in the West. The American empire jettisoned its moral foundations a century ago and the result is an empire that imposes cultural and spiritual chaos on the West. Democracy and the promiscuous lying that we see are just symptoms of the moral hollowness of the empire. The West is now ruled by moral nullities who demand to be treated as moral arbiters and in the end, they are left to operate as dictators holding power by force.

The Spirit Of The Law

Posted on September 6, 2023 by thezman

In the Charles Dickens novel Oliver Twist, Mr. Bumble is told by the court that the law assumes his wife acts under his direction. Mr. Bumble responds with, “If the law supposes that, the law is a ass – a idiot”. The ass in this case is the donkey, an animal known for its obstinance. Over time the expression has been used to point out that the letter of the law can not only contradict the spirit of the law, but the law itself can contradict common sense and objective reality.

The more important point here though is that the law is an effort to formalize the commonly held moral code, a set of rules that determine what members of a society ought to do and ought not to do. It is not the moral code itself, but an effort to write it down on paper so it is clear to everyone. Fundamental to most ethical systems is the assertion that ignorance of the law is no excuse. You need to know the rules, which is why they are written down so that you can know them.

Despite the law seeming to be an ass, there is a logic to the law. That logic, like all systems, starts from some foundational items. These are the things that everyone in the law assumed to be true. For example, the Bill of Rights is supposed to be a list of starting points for understanding the limits of government. These are not supposed to be up for debate. As far as the law is supposed to be concerned, these are settled truths that cannot be challenged or violated.

This gets to an important point. Every system of oughts, the list of things you ought to do and the things you ought not do, begins with a set of eternal truths that rest on a recognized authority. Christians are free to eat pork because they do not recognize the moral authority of the Muslims and Jews. The prohibition against eating pork rests on the moral authority of those two religions. It is not an objective truth, but a subjective one that works only when you accept it.

The law is a system of oughts and therefore assumes an authority and that authority is supposed to be the Constitution but also tradition as expressed through precedent or the accumulation of court decisions. The Constitution is the starting point for what we all agree is the system of oughts. Precedent is the accumulated decisions over time on the things that were not expressly covered in the Constitution. Combined this makes up the system of oughts that define the morality of our society.

That last bit is what is often missed. Once something is formally put on the list of things you ought not do, it quickly becomes part of the informal list of taboos. The reason for this is that we naturally assume that in a democratic society the law reflects not only the general will but general morality. If the law says it is not allowed, it must mean that it is outside of that which is morally acceptable. In other words, once the court makes it against the law, it quickly becomes immoral.

An obvious example of this in action is homosexual marriage. Up until a few years ago people understood that marriage was about creating children. Since nature dictates how this is done, marriage must be one man and one woman. Then one day some people decided that the laws of nature are up for debate. Two men, it was argued, could be married, despite the biological impossibility of it. This group remained a ridiculous minority until they were able to get the courts to side with them.

In the blink of an eye, the issue of homosexual marriage went from absurd poke in the eye of Mother Nature to settled moral principle. Conservatives who opposed the idea then suddenly defended it. Even social conservatives have dropped their public opposition to homosexual marriage. You can see the change in moral attitudes in the polling on the issue. This absurd mockery of the laws of nature became part of the accepted moral code with the stroke of a judge’s pen.

Another example is the Brown decision. Central to the jihad against white people in this age are the novel moral principles invented by the court. In fact, the court not only created two new moral claims, but made those the controlling principles, superseding even those items written in the Constitution itself. As a result, the constitutional order went from a system of limits on government power to a system of demands on the white population of the country.

The same process is happening with the Bostock decision. In this case a majority of the justices agreed that discriminating against men pretending to be women so they can beat up girls on the soccer field is a form of sexual discrimination and therefore violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As Harvard professor Adrian Vermeule points out, this is a ridiculous claim on its face, but it also opens the door for adding yet another novel principle to the legal order.

As we have seen with other novelties from the court, it will not be long before this one sinks into the moral fabric of society. If you do not want your daughters pulverized by burly men in sundresses on the ball field, you will be shunned from polite society or maybe even suffer legal persecution. The fact that the Bostock decision was written by a so-called conservative judge, one anointed by the allegedly conservative Federalist Society and appointed by Trump is critical.

We used to worry about putting Catholics on the bench because it was assumed they would operate from Catholic morality, rather than the morality of high church Protestantism that informed the political order. It was assumed that judges were like all men, and they would operate from within a moral framework, formally expressed through organized religion until recent times. Catholics had Catholic morality, while Episcopalians had Anglican morality.

In other words, the text of the Constitution and the traditions and precedents that informed it were based on a moral framework that existed outside of it. The political system was founded by and for people who assumed a moral order based in high church Protestantism. It did not prohibit men dressed as women from beating up girls on the ball fields because no Christian people would ever conceive of such a thing, much less tolerate advocacy for it.

Once that morale framework was removed from the system, the Constitutional order was left without a moral foundation. It no longer had moral authority on which to rest the list of things members of society ought to do and ought not do. The political system was left to conjure one to replace it. The Brown decision and now Bostock rest on the moral authority of the new religion that has evolved since the middle of the last century, which promises salvation through universal liberation.

In the end, the law is a formalization of the moral code of a society. That moral code reflects the identity of the people who rule society. The foundation of which is either something outside of the human condition like the gods or the collective identity of the people who control society. Once the American ruling class abandoned Christianity as the moral foundation, it eventually settled on the collective identity of the ruling elite that emerged in the middle of the last century.

The trouble is, that ruling elite cannot settle on an exclusive identity as it is a hodgepodge of people from various tribes. Exclusivity therefore runs counter to their shared reality, so their new identity is the Open Society. It is a polite fiction but all ethical codes contain polite fictions. The new ruling elite is every bit as exclusive and discriminating as any ruling elite, it is just that they assume their calling is to usher in the Open Society, a world of free of discrimination and prejudice.

Musk Versus The Demon

Posted on September 5, 2023 by thezman

Imagine you have a business contract with someone who is supposed to provide a service of some sort to you. They do the work, and you pay them. The contract has conditions for when they do the work and how much you pay them, depending upon what they do and how they do it. There is also a clause that says they will pay you if they fail to fulfill their end of the contract. If for some reason they fail to fulfil or break the agreement, they pay you an agreed upon sum.

Before the contract begins, they notify you that they are no longer willing to perform the work and will be breaking the agreement. You try to get an explanation, but the only thing they say is that they are sending you a check for the stipulated amount in the liquidating damages clause of the contract. Quickly you learn that no other vendor performing the service will take your business. You then learn that some shadowy group is threatening anyone who would do business with you.

Naturally, you will think this must be against the law. This shadowy group is deliberately trying to harm you by threating people with whom you conduct business. That has to be illegal, at least it should be illegal. Even if it is not illegal, it has to be something you can bring to court and ask for damages. After all, this shadowy group is deliberately trying to damage you and your business. That is the only logical reason for their action. Now that they have done quantifiable harm, you should have a case.

Putting aside the corrupt state of American courts, your expectation for compensation and maybe even relief is reasonable. There are exceptions. For example, if the shadowy group in question is a criminal enterprise, like the Mafia, then the civil courts are not the right venue. The judge is probably going to be afraid to rule against them and if you get a jury trial then getting a fair jury will be difficult. The threat of death will overcome their zeal for justice.

You also have the issue of foreign governments who operate in the United States and outside American law. The Israeli group Black Cube, for example, does work for people like Harvey Weinstein, who regularly intimidated his victims. Suing such a company in civil court would be pointless. There is also the strong possibility that they would get the government to intervene on their behalf. Serving them and getting them to appear in an American court would be extremely difficult.

This is the background for what could be a very big story. The last few days Elon Musk has been making noises about suing the ADL. He is claiming that the ADL has been threatening advertisers as a way to control social media platforms. Further, he says that the ADL is intimidating his potential advertisers with the claim that Musk is an anti-Semite, and his platform supports antisemitism. As a result, he may take them to court for defamation and dump their private communications.

Assuming Musk is confining himself to American courts, he is most likely wasting his time with the defamation claims. American courts have decided that connected people like the ADL can say anything they like about people who are currently out of favor with the beautiful people. The New York Times just about admitted they lied about Sarah Palin and did so on purpose with malice of forethought. The judge told the jury to rule in favor of the Time because Palin has cooties.

Musk would get the same treatment, but he has another angle. He could argue that the point of the ADL’s campaign against him and his company is to harm his business by interfering in the contracts he has with advertisers and partners. If he can show that their claims of antisemitism are a threat against anyone who would do business with him, which is probably not a hard thing to do, given the behavior of the ADL, then he may have a case against the ADL.

Further, Musk is an extraordinarily rich man with lots of rich friends. There is no question that some of them have had run-ins with the ADL. He could put out the call for others to join the case if they have similar claims. Imagine if his buddy Mark Zuckerberg was willing to support Musk in confirming that the ADL uses gangster tactics to threaten social media platforms. It is unlikely for obvious reasons, but there are millions of potential victims of the ADL’s gangsterism.

This brings us back to those exceptions. Putting aside the grotesque corruption in the American legal system, there is the Mafia and foreign player issue. The ADL operates like other organized crime groups. They use intimidation of government officials as a way to avoid the law. They have their tentacles wrapped around state and federal government agencies. Getting lawyers to take the case, much less getting a judge to hear it is an enormous hurdle for Musk.

Then you have the outlaw nature of the ADL. In a Twitter space on the subject, someone pretending to be a Canadian named Vivian Bercovici was exposed by Keith Woods as an agent of Black Cube. She tried to deny it, but when that was impossible, she dropped off the call and then deleted her Twitter profile. Elon Musk and everyone around him can be sure that these people will unleash all of their intelligence assets against any effort against the ADL.

In the end, the best Musk can hope for is a successful public relations campaign against the ADL and their tactics. For generations, the ADL had exploited the sense of fair play that is a central part of the American character. Their central message is they just want for Jews what everyone else gets, a fair shake. If Musk can expose that as a fraud and expose their gangster tactics, then they lose their moral standing, which is the only reason their tactics are effective.

There is more to it, of course. As we saw with Jeffrey Epstein and Robert Maxwell, these people play the hardest of hardball. Maybe things have reached the point where the ADL decides to send a message to the rest of the oligarchs by making an example of the world’s richest man. Maybe this is all theater by Musk and the ADL to shift focus away from more pressing matters. If one is looking for a little hope, this Musk versus the ADL is a nice bit of sunshine to brighten the mood.

Promotions: We have a new addition to the list. The Pepper Cave produces exotic peppers, pepper seeds and plants, hot sauce and seasonings. Their spice infused salts are a great add to the chili head spice armory.

The Star Chamber Phase

Posted on August 30, 2023 by thezman

Note #1: If you are thinking the kids need something to wear to school that celebrates our diversity, consider buy one of these new shirts. Nothing tells the world how hard you celebrate our diversity like a Lagos Trading Company t-shirt.

Note #2: I was invited on to chat with Peter Quinones about the Republican debate, the courage of Trump, the Tucker interview and many other things. For those missing the sound of me droning on each Friday, you can get your fix here.

The term “star chamber” has fallen out of use over the last few decades, but it was a common term used by the American Left in the 20th century. They would use it when arguing that the courts were acting arbitrarily. Other times they would use it in the context of public opinion when one of their guys was in trouble. The point was that the media was being unfair to their guy. Star chambers were bad so anything with those words associated with it must be bad too.

The Star Chamber was a real thing. It was an English court setup in the 15th century to oversee cases involving socially and political important people. This court was staffed with advisors to the king. This way the judges would not be intimidated by the status of the accused. No one knows for sure how it got the name “star chamber” but the most popular theory says it comes from the decorations. The ceiling was painted with gold stars on a blue background.

Of course, like all government power, it was soon abused by the people wielding it to first attack their enemies in court and then to suppress dissent. The main reason it was subverted into an instrument of oppression is it lacked due process. There was no appealing the decisions of the court and since it operated by its own rules, there could be no appeal to a fixed set of rules. This allowed the king to use the system to persecute his enemies and stamp out dissent.

It is why up until the last few decades, the American court system was based on a fixed set of rules that governed all courts. This was ensured by an appeals system that ended with the Supreme Court. Forgotten today, the primary purpose of the Supreme Court was to make sure the court system followed the rules, the primary source of which is the Constitution itself. The courts being open to the public was an additional check on abuse of the legal system by the powerful.

The reason “star chamber” has fallen out of fashion in America is the Left has seized control of the institutions, including the centers of cultural production. They no longer look at the abuse of power as a problem because they have all the power so by definition all uses of power are justified. Note that their objections to the secret courts created after 9/11 were ceremonial and halfhearted. In reality they welcomed this new tool they could use in pursuit of their agenda.

Note also that the only thing we know about these secret courts is they were used against Donald Trump in the 2016 election. To date no one has produced an example of how these courts prevented terrorism. The documented abuses of these secret courts by the FBI have gone unaddressed. Because the courts are secret, we have no idea what goes on inside them, so there is no way to know they are not being used against dissidents in the same way they were used against Trump.

Putting that aside, the court system we can see is also going through a transformation toward the Star Chamber model. Again, Trump provides some examples. In his Florida case the court has warned him about making public statements. There is the threat of a gag order hanging over him. In Washington, Jack Smith has asked the court for what amounts to a gag order on Trump. In Georgia, Trump cancelled a press conference about the case for fear of retribution from the court.

Since we get our information about court proceedings from the media and the media is now an agent of the state, it is not hard to see why proscribed people would want to have their say outside the courthouse. The only chance for fairness in the courtroom now is for the accused to make his appeals outside the courthouse. Naturally, the courts now wish to stifle such conduct. If they can gag the accused, he cannot shine a light on the abuses inside the court through appeals to the public.

This is not just a phenomenon in high profile political cases. Increasingly, local judges and prosecutors are doing the same thing. Here is a case of a famous college football player accused of heinous crimes. If you read between the lines, he was framed by the cops but was forced to remain quiet in order to get out of the case. He comes from money and his father is famous, but none of that matters in a court system that is increasingly the tool of arbitrary state power.

The difference between the rule of law and rule by men is that the former has a clear and precises set of rules open to the public, while the latter is based on the momentary whims of the people who wield power. The proliferation of laws along with a proliferation of ways to interpret the laws has made everything illegal. No one can now list all of the federal crimes on the books. As a result, most people are breaking the law every day of their life without knowing it.

The reason this matters is one of the predicates for social upheaval, like civil wars and revolutions, is the collapse of trust in the law. The Star Chamber system, for example, ended with the English Civil War. The American Revolution was, in part, a response to the collapse of legal authority. The American Civil War was due, in part, to a collapse in trust by both sides in the courts fairly dealing with the slavery issue. The legal system no longer provided a solution to disputes.

When no one trusts the law or the legal system, no one has a reason to obey the rules, much less respect the system that creates them. Put another way, when everyone is in violation of the law, then everyone is motivated to live outside the law. This is the fundamental definition of the outlaw. He is an outlaw because he rejects the system of laws and therefore exists outside the law. This is also the starting place for every revolutionary and revolutionary movement.

In the end, the test of a legal system is the test of a society. That is, how much protection does it provide to those with the least power. A society that provides only protection to the powerful is a tyranny. A legal system that provides no protection to those without power from those with power is also a tyranny. The Star Chamber became the symbol of tyrannical rule because it was the instrument of tyranny, just as our legal system is today.

The Liberal Post Liberals

Posted on August 21, 2023 by thezman

Note: Behind the green door is a post about the 70’s classic Taxi Driver, a post about the legendary film and book, A Clockwork Orange and the Sunday podcast. You can sign up for a green door account at SubscribeStar or Substack.

Over the last several years, a group of academics and intellectuals have formed what is now called post-liberalism. The members of this group do not agree on many things, but they agree on one important thing and that is what they call liberalism has run its course and it is time for something new. Patrick Deneen, one of the key members of the post-liberals, has a new book out called Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future, in which he sets out to describe what should replace liberalism.

This is the third book from Deneen on the subject. In 2016, Deneen published Conserving America?, which was a collection of essays on the current social and moral troubles of this age. After that he published Why Liberalism Failed, which was a book length analysis of what he calls liberalism. This latest book is supposed to build on that second book and lay out a vision for how to put an end to the liberal order and provide a sketch for what should replace it.

Regime Change has been met with mostly negative reviews. A good example is from Charles Haywood at Worthy House, who was enthusiastically positive about Deneen’s prior book on the subject. It is also fair to say that Haywood is positively disposed to the broad concept of post-liberalism. He makes the point that despite the title, Deneen is not actually suggesting we change the regime. Instead, he offers up the usual list of reforms that have no chance of being considered.

The main problem with the book, as Haywood notes, is that it is organized in such a way as to avoid the main topic of the book. The first three quarters are a summary of the arguments Deneen made in his liberalism book. Instead of leading to a demand for a bloody revolution to overthrow the regime, replacing it with a dictatorship of recent Catholic converts, Deneen delivers a poorly conceived list of reforms and some bromides about racism and colonialism.

This gets to one of the main problems with the post-liberal project. It is not really post-liberal and the members are not opposed to liberalism. Instead, they oppose some of the consequences of the current ruling order. They appropriate words and concepts from dissidents, without fully understanding the meaning of them. The phrase “regime change” is a good example. One gets the sense that Deneen liked the sound of it and wrote a book so he could use it for a title.

More troubling, the post-liberals have not thought about why the arc of the liberal project has led to the present. If they wished to limit the scope, they could start with the American constitution and examine what happened along the way. It should be quite clear that the current ruling order is nothing like what the Framers created and nothing they imagined was possible. Chronicling how we got to this point, skipping past the speculation as to why it happened, would be a good start.

There is none of that in this book or in Deneen’s prior work. In fact, it is not particularly clear that he understands where to place the starting point of liberalism. He gives us far too many references to Aristotle, which is always a sign that the author is struggling with his choice of topics. He also likes to quote Aquinas. That is getting warmer, but when he talks about Locke, you wonder if he is talking about the same John Locke that the rest of us had to read in college.

Probably the most puzzling thing about the Deneen project is that he never mentions Alasdair MacIntyre, who was a long serving scholar at Notre Dame. He wrote the book, After Virtue, which was a highly successful critique of liberalism. If you search the name in Deneen’s last two books you get zero mentions. This is strange, since MacIntyre tackles the causes of liberalism’s failure and also takes on John Rawls, the most important liberal political thinker of the last century.

This gets to the main problem of the post-liberal project. They do a respectable job describing the present and the dangers it presents. Where they struggle is in understanding that maybe the current order is not actually a liberal order, but a post-liberal order. Further, they do not understand that the American project evolved outside of European liberalism. The Enlightenment is a good starting point, but the Reformation is a much better place to start.

All that said, none of this should be taken as a dismissal of the post-liberal project or the academics and intellectuals attracted to it. What Deneen and others are doing is drawing attention to the inherent flaws of the current order and in the process legitimizing the questioning of it. Slowly, questioning the assumptions of liberalism is becoming acceptable. When a bigfoot college academic calls for regime change, it is now acceptable to discuss the topic in polite company.

As far as the Deneen book, while it fails to deliver on the promise of the title, it is a useful look inside the mind of the post-liberal. The dissident will see the same struggle they experienced as they crossed the great divide. What comes through in this book is a man struggling to wake up from the myth of the 20th century. If members of the modern monastery are experiencing this, then it suggests the regime is far closer to a moral crisis than many would like to admit.

A Surprise Ending

Posted on August 16, 2023 by thezman

The latest indictments of Donald Trump are a good example of how narrative is a controlling feature of the managerial state. This is the fourth batch of indictments and arguably the most ridiculous. The players on the side of the regime are like characters from a racial satire. The fact that they accidentally posted the results before the grand jury vote is what we have come to expect in the crisis of competency. It is as if the regime is trying to prove the critics are right.

Putting aside the idiocy of it all, the interesting bit is how narrative drives the actions of the elites even when the narrative is false. They come up with a scenario for how things will unfold in their favor over some period of time. This gains circulation among the elites and their key servants in the managerial class. Those key servants then announce the narrative to the media, who then scurry about repeating it in various ways until it becomes the consensus.

We see this with the Trump indictments. Before the first indictment, there were rumors about the Department of Justice looking into Trump. Then we had some stories about pressure on Merrick Garland to appoint a special investigator to look into Trump’s role in the January 6 stuff. It was at this point the key servants arrived to deliver the narrative on the Trump indictment. They wrote op-eds and appeared on cable chat shows to explain to the media what will happen.

What would happen is this. Trump would be indicted for mean words and one of three things would follow. He would be disqualified under the 14th amendment. He would drop out of the race. The Republican Party would disqualify him. All of this assumed that once he was indicted, his support would collapse. The only people supporting him would be QAnon weirdos and election deniers. This could then be used to pressure him if pressure were needed.

Once the official narrative was announced, the race was on to be the star of the show that got the ball rolling. The affirmative action guy in New York pulled the lucky ticket and indicted Trump for the crime of paying his bills on time. The excitement among the media was as if they were waiting for the Great Pumpkin to arrive. They were about to see the fulfillment of the narrative. Trump showed up, got charged and then continued campaigning as his popularity spiked up.

It took a little while for the media to figure out that the narrative was not playing out as they had been promised. CNN had a townhall hosted by their new you-go-girl that was supposed to be a roasting of Trump over his legal issues. To their horror, you-go-girl was not as good on stage as on the couch. Trump all but put her over his knee for a good spanking. Worse yet, the audience turned on the bimbo and laughed along with Trump at the idiocy of the whole thing.

Instead of backtracking on the narrative, we got two sets of Federal indictments of Trump, along with the same story lines from the prior indictment. The only thing missing was a Greek chorus chanting, “We got him this time. There is no way he escapes the narrative after this indictment.” Of course, in both cases Trump’s polling has gone up as people begin to see him as a victim of a malevolent system. At this point, the official Trump narrative should have collapsed.

Instead, we have a fresh batch of indictments. There is also word that other states with crackpot governors are looking to indict Trump. It is becoming something like the iPod craze back in the before times. All of the fashionable people in the provinces now want an indictment of Trump like the cool people have in the big cities. At this rate, the Europeans will be indicting Trump. Maybe they can drag him to the Hague for crimes against humanity for eating his steak well done.

Note that in each effort to push the narrative along the focus has been on humiliating Trump in the process. In this new show from Georgia, the first thing they did was announce that they will mugshot Trump and spread the pic online. The fact that they continue to think they can humiliate this man by making him more popular is a staggering indictment of these people. Trump will be selling shirts with his mugshot on them to raise millions for his campaign.

The Trump business is just a recent example. The war on Russia has been controlled by elite narrative framing. It is the same process. They created a narrative of Russian collapse and instead of updating the narrative in the face of disconfirmation, they reinvent the narrative with new features, like a counter-offensive or now the new spring of 2024 Ukrainian offensive. No matter what reality is doing, the narrative must be protected, even if it could bring disaster.

This is something to keep in mind as the economy falters this autumn. People in the dreaded private sector will tell you that things are not great in the economy, and it has all the signs of a recession. Inflation is not defeated, despite claims to the contrary, and oil prices are rising just in time for the heating season. The rise in the cost of money is starting to have its effect on the economy. Now China is admitting that it is headed to recession, due to slack demand from the West.

This is happening while the regime prepares to run the corpse of Joe Biden as the man who not only saved the world from Trump, but the man who singlehandedly saved the economy from disaster. The key servants have been out instructing the media on the new narrative about the economy. This means we will be flooded with stories about the economic miracle just as the economy is tipping into recession. Such a disconnect is the sort of thing that causes revolutions.

That is what may be the death of our regime. The people at the top of it live in a world of narratives that are independent of reality. They are so sure they can compel reality to fit their version of reality that they cannot imagine an alternative ending. The Tsar, no doubt, could not imagine an alternative ending to his narrative. The many people who met the national razor never were shocked by the end to their narrative. Our rulers may be in for a surprise ending too.

The Cult Of Nick

Posted on August 15, 2023 by thezman

A few years ago, the fans of Nick Fuentes were no different from the fans of any of the other internet personalities that inhabit the video space. They liked his work and felt like they knew enough about him to like him personally. This is the unique aspect of video compared to audio and the written word. There is always a stronger emotional connection with the audience in the video format. Otherwise, Nick Fuentes was just another popular YouTube guy.

Since then, much has changed. Fuentes has inserted himself into the Trump story in ways that other political entertainers have avoided. He participated in the “Stop the Steal” rallies after the 2020 election. He was at the infamous J6 rally. He was by far the most enthusiastic supporter of Trump during that process. He also transformed from a commentator to something of a guru for the Zoomers. He was not just a YouTuber, but the cult leader of a youth political movement.

That is the way to think of the Fuentes operation now. His group is a cult of personality driven by people who believe in Nick Fuentes. He is not an entertainer or a political commentator, but the spiritual head of a movement. It is not just his followers who speak in these terms but Fuentes himself. He regularly reminds his followers that one day soon they will take over the world and remake it in their image. They are the change they have been waiting for, to quote a past cult leader.

In the modern age, the word “cult” conjures images of a lunatic leading a collection of naïve or desperate people. The words “UFO” and “suicide” tend to be attached to the word “cult” when describing an undesirable group of people. Neocons, for example, are often compared to a suicide cult. Then you have the image of the cult leader who is always a charlatan or crackpot preying on fools. The cult leader is never someone doing good things or operating from good intentions.

This was not always the case. The ancient world had many cults, and no one thought it strange for someone to be in a cult. Often, a cult would organize around a place where something special happened. Then you had mystery cults like the Eleusinian Mysteries, which dated back to the Greek Dark Ages. The Norse had cults that often revolved around personal or household gods. Of course, the ancients had many cults of personality centered on a charismatic figure.

That is how we need to think about the Fuentes phenomenon and other cults of personality that we are seeing. The ancient Greeks did not have political parties as we think of them, but personality cults that played a similar role. In the Roman Republic, politics revolved around strong popular figures. The more a society embraces the democracy idea, the more inclined they are to look to individuals who can lead the people in the direction they want to go.

Look back at American politics and you see the trend. Reagan was a highly charismatic figure whose support was mostly personal. Clinton was another highly charismatic guy whose support was entirely personal. He was compared to the acronym figures of progressive lore, as if he was the return of the king. Obama was obviously black Jesus for progressives. He never said anything of substance, but his followers would swoon when he spoke. Trump, of course, is a similar figure for his followers.

This is where we pick back up on the Fuentes story. To his followers, he is the young Trump or maybe the heir to Trump. While Fuentes never says this explicitly, his presentation suggests he understands the connection being made. He often talks about Trump as an imperfect messenger, which naturally implies that Fuentes is the new and improved version who can see the flaws, but still support the man. The cult of Nick is sure he will be president one day.

This may seem a bit weird, but it is important to keep in mind that this generation thinks about things wholly in the context of the internet. Clout is the currency of this world and that comes in the form of audience. That audience does not have to be in favor to count for clout points. You can have clout when lots of people oppose you. This is why Nick claims to be the most censored man on the internet. What he is saying is that he is the most important man on the internet and thus the world.

Because of our interconnectedness, the cult-like aspects of the Nick Fuentes movement jump out when you interact with it. For starters, all of his fans say the same things about why they like Fuentes. He has clout, of course. He also gets the message out to the biggest audience. He is the most successful leader in the history of “the movement” which is never explained. To what end is never addressed. What matters is that Nick Fuentes is famous, so he has clout.

That is where you see this as a cult of personality. Question the members and you will find that they have no agenda beyond supporting Nick. Press further and they do not know Nick’s agenda or even think about it. They trust Nick. The closest you will get is he wants to restore America to a white Christian nation. By Christian they mean Catholic, only because Nick Fuentes says he is a Catholic. He also wants to remove the Jews from power, even though he has Jews in his movement.

The Jewish aspect is a big tell, as far as whether this is a cult. Go to a Fuentes event and you will find Jewish supporters. The most committed Fuentes followers will welcome them without much thought. Key figures in the Fuentes operation are Jewish, despite Fuentes railing about Jews every day. This weird contradiction is the sort of test of faith you always see in a cult of personality. The truest believers easily accept the obvious contradictions and still love their leader.

Similar to the Jewish issue is the political issue. When pressed, the followers of Nick will say they are the only force opposing the system. In order to overthrow the system, they plan to take over the system through conventional means like elections or participation in mass media. In other words, they oppose the system by supporting it and they will overthrow the system by taking it over and using it to impose their vague version of a white Catholic democracy.

This is where things get interesting. If you manage to pin down one of the more intelligent members on these contradictions, they shift gears and tell you why it is important to not have a coherent agenda. They will say that ideology is the enemy because it is Jewish or liberal or some other scare word. This comes from Nick Fuentes who says this whenever he is pressed on specifics. In other words, the followers closely mimic their leader to avoid thinking about it.

In fairness, there is nothing going on here to raise alarm. This is not a suicide cult or terrorist cell headed for disaster. Nick Fuentes is not Jim Jones. Most of the followers are primarily drawn to the irreverence of Fuentes and the movement. If you press hard enough, the most committed will confess that much of what they are doing is sort of a performative lampooning of society. The Cult of Nick is bathos and pathos to create an emotional experience that is the only real point.

This explains the appeal, despite the many missteps of Fuentes. The young males attracted to this are from a common demographic. They are from white middle-class suburbs outside the South. Most were raised by women, and their play was exclusively online in the form of gaming. The intensity of the “groyper movement” provides something real compared to the synthetic reality of their upbringing. It also is largely free of women, which makes sense in this context.

Ironically, it also has the intense youth culture aspect that drove the 1960’s counterculture youth movements. The Boomers did not trust anyone over thirty and the Zoomers agreed with them. This is not Peter Pan syndrome, but a sense that their unhappiness is due to the failings of adults. The Boomers blamed the adults for squandering the promise of America on war and money making. The Zoomers blame the Boomers for doing the same thing.

That brings us to where this is headed. It has been assumed that Fuentes will follow the same arc as other e-celebrities. In time he would do things to ruin his clout and end up on the bench with people like Richard Spencer. That has not been the case. His wacky adventures with the mentally unstable Kanye West only made him more popular with his young fans. It got him attention, so it got him clout. In this regard, Fuentes is a unique figure in that all publicity is good publicity.

The challenge for this cult is time. Fuentes is twenty-four and his typical follower is in his late teens and early twenties. In five years, Fuentes is no longer a kid. His core followers will be entering the work world. There will be new young guys hunting clout with Generation Alpha, perhaps using Fuentes as a foil. In other words, the Cult of Nick will need to transition from the Neverland of internet culture to the hard reality of the material world that has all of those nasty adults.

This assumes the material world remains the controlling factor. Just as the Zoomers are an inflection point in history, the Cult of Nick could be an inflection point in how politics are conducted in an internet democracy. Fuentes may feel like a stranger in a strange land to those anchored in the analog world, but he could be the leading edge of the digital age that will sweep away the analog age of politics. Perhaps the Fosterite Cult of Nick becomes the Church of All Worlds.

The Kids Are Not Alright

Posted on August 14, 2023 by thezman

Note: Behind the green door is a post about the difficulty in making quality science fiction movies and two posts about the American Renaissance conference. You can sign up for a green door account at SubscribeStar or Substack.

Every new generation gets the usual treatment from the usual suspects, always in an effort to prepare the way for their integration into the culture. The naming of generations is like the naming of weather events. It is part of shaping a narrative. Of course, it is also a way to sell the new generation cultural products by flattering them with claims that they are special unicorns here to make everything right. Generational politics is a way to condition the young to conform to the cultural norms.

The Zoomers may be an exception to this rule. They are getting the usual treatment from the usual suspects, but unlike prior generations they have been raised as consumerist bugmen from birth. Consumerism is a part of their identity, not an activity to be encourage. Popular culture and consumer goods define them on an individual basis, but also signal their participation in subcultures within the generation. They do not require a “buy signal” as that is coded into their DNA.

This is also a generation raised by women for a female dominated culture. Gen-X is arguably the first feminized generation. The explosion of divorce in the 1970’s meant that many of this cohort were raised by mothers in female led homes. The surrounding world, however, was still a male oriented world. This started to change with Millennials who came along as society rapidly feminized. The Zoomers were not just raised in the longhouse, but for the longhouse.

Then you have the totally novel socialization of Zoomers. For as long as man as lived in settled societies, children were socialized in unsupervised play, with some guidance from parents and other adults. Helicopter parenting with the Millennials changed this, but the internet revolutionized it for the Zoomers. Mom was content to let the kids play video games in their room. They were safe. Meanwhile, the kids were learning to deal with other humans through the internet.

One result is that there are two distinct groups within the Zoomer generation that have nothing to do with class or education. One group played sports or grew up doing outside activities, while the other group grew up online. The former group is better socialized and far less engaged in popular culture. The latter, a much larger portion, is socially awkward, defined by consumerism and most important, wildly unrealistic about themselves, the world, and their place in the world.

The difference between online socialization and real-world socialization is easiest to see with the males. Males learning the male role on the playground got in fights and had to navigate physical space using the limitations of their mind and body. Getting beat in a physical game by someone who is not only better but will always be better is a humbling experience that is an important lesson in life. Getting in a fight on the playground, regardless of the result, shapes your behavior.

Zoomer males socialized online never experience this. Their character in the game can be whatever they imagine. This is why male video game characters are cartoonish caricatures of the idealized male form. Unlike on the ball field or the playground, the worst thing to happen to you online is your character dies. Maybe you get blocked from a chat room. You just respawn as a new character. There are no real consequences, so perceptions and expectations are never tempered.

One result of this is the Zoomer males sound like middle-aged single women when they engage with the public. Scan their online spaces and it is the sorts of complaints you expect from women. That is, they make everything about their feelings about an issue, rather than the issue itself. Nick Fuentes does a show that is mostly him complaining about the world being mean to him. The Groyper livestreaming space is a low production value version of daytime talk shows.

This jumps out when it comes to sex. Close to 20% of this generation claim to be something other than sexually normal. Some of it is fashion, particularly with the females, but much of it is simply a result of socialization. Both males and females have been raised in such a way that the normal interaction between the sexes has been short-circuited. Identifying as trans or pansexual is much easier when the normal interaction between the sexes has been made weirdly difficult.

Female Zoomers have been raised on a steady diet of Nth wave feminism for a world run by women. They think they can do all the you-go-girl stuff they get in the classroom and the popular culture. The trouble is, none of that you-go-girl stuff prepares them to land a boyfriend, much less a husband. Yet, that age old desire to be a woman and find a man remains. The result is a generation of females frustrated by the sexual marketplace, with nowhere to turn for advice.

Male Zoomers, raised to believe that females are the dominant force in the sexual marketplace, have not developed the social skills to interact with females. They assume the female should pursue them. Compounding it is the deluge of porn that has washed over them growing up online. Their sexual attitudes have been perverted to the point where many of them are incapable of interacting with a human female. Instead, they date anime characters and simp for female livestreamers.

Another novel feature of the Zoomer generation is that their social capital is virtual, rather than practical. Status is about online clout. This can be in the form of followers on social media or traffic on a livestream. In the analog age, expensive display items indicated money, which provided status. In the digital age, the digital man wants internet clout, which signals his status. Nick Fuentes lives in his parents’ basement and has never touched a woman, but he has clout, so he is important.

This explains the endless boasting. Zoomers in the real world are quiet wallflowers, but online they are obnoxious braggarts. It is why they worship Donald Trump. So many of them have embraced his boasting style because boasting is an important part of getting clout online, so why not emulate the greatest shit-poster of all time? This is why Nick Fuentes says he is the most censored man on the internet. The absurdity of the claim is the point because it gets attention and therefore it gets clout.

This also explains the unearned confidence. The generation least prepared for the world as it is and wholly unprepared for what is coming, is convinced they will take over the world and impose their will. Again, this gets back to being raised by video games and livestreams. You can always beat the game, so they assume they will beat the game of life. They find it ridiculous to think otherwise. Those who came before them are just losers who sucked at video games.

Something that ties it all together is the lack of seriousness. Again, Zoomers engage with the world for the sole reason of gaining online clout. To gain clout first requires getting attention. Getting attention means finding a novel way to present yourself online, so anything goes. It also helps if you can get the attention of other clout merchants, so the result is ridiculous clout chasers aping the antics of clout merchants. The clout market is a freakshow as a result.

Gen-X came into a world that was never going to cater to them, so they were prepared to be ignored by the massive boomer population before them. Millennials came into the world lacking many basic skills, but the world they entered was stable and prepared to assimilate them. Zoomers have been prepared for a world that only exists online and they are entering a world that is in crisis. The result is the real world is not ready to reprogram the Zoomers for success in reality.

More important, this cohort is going to live their prime years in a society that is in both steep cultural decline, but also economic decline. Reality has a way of fixing the mistakes of society, but reality is not ready for the Zoomers any more than the Zoomers are ready for reality. In the fullness of time, this generation may be the inflection point of Western society. They are both the end product of the long unfolding social crisis in the West, but also the last hope for arresting it.

The Crisis At The Window

Posted on August 10, 2023 by thezman

For about six months, starting last winter, Western media talked about a Ukrainian counter-offensive that was supposed to change the direction of the war. These stories coincided with stories about the delivery of various types of equipment, along with expert opinions from retired generals. Late in the spring Washington sent reliable toadies over to Kiev to see the plans and then talk to the media about how the Ukrainians were preparing to deal a death blow to Moscow.

As we get into the heart of August and the third month of the offensive, it is clear to most everyone that it has been a disaster. First came the images of Western armored vehicles trapped in minefields. Images of burning tanks were then followed by video of Ukrainian soldiers struggling to escape the same minefields after their armored vehicles were disabled by mines. Then came weeks of reports in the West about revised tactics that achieved nothing along the front.

As things stand, the most enthusiastic Ukraine supporters say that the counter-offensive has managed to capture about ten square miles. In reality, the Ukrainians failed to make it through the security zone of Russian defenses. This is the area in front of the first defensive lines that are used to slow an attack. In the south, Ukraine managed to capture a few abandoned villages, but relentless Russian attacks from artillery and airpower turned those into Ukrainian cemeteries.

At the start of the offensive, independent observers and Russian sources said the Ukrainians had enough resources to continue their offensive into August. At that point they will have exhausted men and material. At that point, they would have no choice but to stop offensive operations and fall back into defensive positions. Otherwise, they would be forced to cannibalize their lines and leave themselves open to Russian attacks in other areas along the line of contact.

That may have been a generous assessment. Over the last couple of weeks Russian forces in the north have steadily pushed the Ukrainians back. Ukraine has just moved their northern headquarters west to get clear of the Russian advance. They have also ordered the evacuation of Kupyansk, an important town located on the bank of the Oskil River in the Kharkiv Oblast. Reports suggest the Ukrainians simply lack the manpower and equipment to defend the area.

Washington is in a panic because they promised everyone that the Ukrainians would easily smash through Russian lines in the south. The plan was to rush through to the Sea of Azov, thus severing the land bridge between Russia and Crimea. Once that happened, attacks would begin on Crimea. The Russian army would either revolt after the humiliation or simply collapse, causing political chao in Moscow. It is hard to believe, but this was the official narrative.

Interestingly, the narrative was not just another pack of lies from the Kagan cult, but an official assessment from the Pentagon. It has been Western military doctrine that the way to defeat the Russians in a land war is with a rapid, concentrated attack on their defensive lines using armor and infantry. Here is a paper on the topic from 2017 and here is a recent video discussing it in connection with this war. This strategy actually goes back to the Cold War days.

The short version is that Russia organized its army around groups of 800 to 1000 men that operate independently within the defensive formation. These units have, tanks armored personnel carriers and artillery. The NATO strategy was to send overwhelming force at these units, forcing them to retreat in order to preserve their equipment. Russia is known for trading land for resources. They did this in the Kharkiv region last year and in the Kherson region last spring.

What Washington did not notice is that the Russians have moved away from the Battalion Tactical Group to more flexible arrangements based on the situation, terrain, and their own resources. In the south when Ukraine launched its main attack, they did not face battalions, but divisions. Further, the Russians had prepared complex defensive positions designed to trap advancing armored columns. In other words, the Russians read that paper and were ready for it.

Another thing Washington did not notice is that the Russian army has changed in other ways since the Cold War. They have a wide range of electronic warfare systems that work well against modern weapons. They also have incorporated drones in massive numbers that are highly effective against Western armor. The internet is full of videos where a Lancet drone takes out a Ukrainian armored vehicle. The Russians have quickly become the masters of drone warfare.

The main reason the Ukrainian offensive is a catastrophe is the side with the trillion-dollar annual budget has not updated their understanding of the Russian army since the last century. They have not bothered to notice what has been happening on the battlefields over the last eighteen months. Instead, the world’s most expensive military has gone along with the crackpot plans of the Kagan cult, either not understanding what is happening or indifferent to the inevitable results.

The Ukraine war is becoming a microcosm of the crisis of competence. It is not just the scarcity of talented people in the ranks. They still exist in sufficient numbers to keep the system operating reasonably well. The issue is the selection pressure at the top is for true believers and sycophants. The only way to get in the room to discuss the Ukraine war is to be fully on board with the dream of destroying Russia or be willing to humiliate yourself by telling these people what they want to hear.

Imagine the tag team of Victoria Nuland and General Milley replicated throughout the managerial system. Nuland is the maniacal imbecile in charge for no other reason than zealotry, while Milley is the oleaginous flunky with the credentials to provide legitimacy to the rantings of Nuland. The competent are driven from the room, leaving this combination to chart public policy. The general decline in competence that is driving demographics, is driven by this combination at the top.

In the movie Braveheart, Longshanks returns from France to confront his son who was charged with putting down the Scottish revolt. His son has his “advisor” with him, who makes the mistake of speaking out of turn. This is what has happened in the West, except Longshanks died of a heart attack and his son is in charge. The advisor now busies himself telling the son what he wants to hear. Meanwhile, outside the castle walls, the kingdom rattles toward collapse.

The Z Blog

Sports, Culture and Other Stuff

Category Archives: Culture